Efficacy and Acceptability of 1 Liter of Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid vs. 2 Liters of Polyethylene Glycol Plus Mosapride and Sennoside for Colonoscopy Preparation

Efficacy and tolerability of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with senna versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colonoscopic bowel preparation: Prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial

OBJECTIVES

Low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of colonoscopic bowel preparation (BP) solution, but is still poorly tolerated. Adding laxatives to the BP solution reduces the volume of fluid required, without affecting quality. This study aimed to compare 1 L PEG-Asc plus 24 mg senna (1L-PEG/AS) and conventional 2 L PEG-Asc (2L-PEG/A) regimens on BP quality and patient tolerability.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial was performed between June and August 2022. Outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to evaluate BP quality. Adverse events and tolerability were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Overall, 344 patients received 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A regimens. The baseline characteristics and adverse events of the two groups were comparable. The 1L-PEG/AS group showed noninferior adequate BP rates compared with the 2L-PEG/A group (88% vs. 89%, P = 1.00); overall BBPS was 7.1 ± 1.5 and 7.2 ± 1.5, respectively (P = 0.39). Higher willingness to repeat the BP was observed in the 1L-PEG/AS group (85% vs. 62%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1L-PEG/AS regimen was comparable to the 2L-PEG/A regimen in terms of BP adequacy, requiring lower BP solution volumes, with better patient tolerance. Thus, it may be a suitable alternative to the conventional BP solution for colonoscopy. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT1051220043).

The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations

BACKGROUND

A low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution that combines ascorbic acid with PEG-based electrolyte solution (PEG-ASC) is gaining mainstream acceptance for bowel preparation due to reduced volume and improved taste. Although several reports showed that bowel preparation with PEG-ASC volume lower than 2.0 L with laxative agents could be an alternative to traditional preparation regimen, the cleansing protocols have not been fully investigated.

AIM

To evaluate the cleansing efficacy of 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution comparing with 2.0 L PEG electrolyte (PEG-ELS) for bowel preparations.

METHODS

A randomized, single-blinded, open-label, single-center, non-inferiority study was conducted. In total, 312 Japanese adult patients (aged > 18 years) who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to bowel lavage with either 1.2 L of PEG-ASC solution with at least 0.6 L of an additional clear fluid (1.2 L PEG-ASC group) or 2.0 L of PEG-ELS (PEG-ELS group). Then, 48 mg of sennoside was administered at bedtime on the day before colonoscopy, and the designated drug solution was administered at the hospital on the day of colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The volume of fluid intake and required time for bowel preparation were evaluated. Furthermore, compliance, patient tolerance, and overall acceptability were evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

In total, 291 patients (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 148; PEG-ELS group, 143) completed the study. There was no significant difference in successful cleansing, defined as a BBPS score ≥ 2 in each segment, between the two groups (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 91.9%; PEG-ELS group, 90.2%; 95%CI: -0.03-0.09). The required time for bowel preparation was significantly shorter (164.95 min ± 68.95 min vs 202.16 min ± 68.69 min, P < 0.001) and the total fluid intake volume was significantly lower (2.23 L ± 0.55 L vs 2.47 L ± 0.56 L, P < 0.001) in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group. Palatability, acceptability of the volume of solution, and overall acceptability evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed by the visual analog scale, were significantly better in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group (7.70 cm ± 2.57 cm vs 5.80 cm ± 3.24 cm, P < 0.001). No severe adverse event was observed in each group.

CONCLUSION

The 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution was non-inferior to the 2.0 L PEG-ELS solution in terms of cleansing efficacy and had better acceptability among Japanese patients.

Educational Video Followed by Retelling Bowel Preparation Process to Improve Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality: A Prospective Nursing Intervention Study

Background

This study investigated the effect of a patient education video followed by retelling the process of bowel preparation on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality.

Material/Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients were randomized (1: 1) to the video + retelling group or the control group. The primary endpoint was to assess the bowel preparation quality using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality scale (Ottawa score). Risk factors associated with poor bowel preparation were also evaluated.

Result

The video + retelling group had a higher percentage of patients with adequate colonoscopy bowel preparation (Ottawa score <6) than the control group (P<0.001). Mean Ottawa total scores significantly differed between the control group and the video + retelling group (4.18±1.4 vs. 3.05±1.3, P<0.001). The video + retelling group showed superior cleanliness in the right, middle, and recto-sigmoid colon segments (all Ps <0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender (OR=2.10, 95%CI: 1.098–4.018, P=0.025), diabetes mellitus (OR=2.830, 95%CI: 1.257–6.372, P=0.012), and no educational video followed by retelling bowel preparation process (OR=3.02, 95%CI: 1.731–5.270, P<0.001) were independently associated with poor bowel preparation.

Conclusions

Use of an educational video followed by asking patients to retell the process of bowel preparation after receiving regular instructions is a convenient and risk-free practice that enhances the compliance with bowel preparation guidance and improves bowel preparation quality.